| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 24 1 June 2007 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email' folder, see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, travellers on campus, Bailrigg Science Park, Senate Report, online policing, return of the fobs, staff and the Sugarhouse, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL subtext recently drew attention to the town-gown dichotomy, and the need for the University of Lancaster to have a positive relationship with its neighbouring communities. This theme is also at least an undercurrent in some of the articles in this issue. The University's 'third mission' represents one way it can bring wider benefit to the community, but the tension continues between the idea of university-as-profit, and the need to further research, education and service more widely, even when it is not profit-making. The recently announced staff community prizes show that the University is recognising achievement. It is useful to have examples that can be inspiring and encouraging so that, even in cases in which institutional priorities on targets conflict with community outreach, people find a way to reach out and make a difference. So watch this space, and contribute your ideas on examples of good practice, and the ways that people in Lancaster are fostering a sense of community beyond the boundaries of the University. It is not all a matter of looking 'out' from the University but also a matter of looking inward, and seeing what lessons we can learn from one another. On this, we can learn in unexpected ways, for example by seeing if there are lessons for staff from student outreach or involvement in the wider community. Even a visit to student nightclubs can help put ideas in context, to help in thinking through the perspectives of others at Lancaster within the wider community. And so, in this issue, one of our articles focuses on the Sugarhouse, and considers that we have much to learn from our students. We also continue with the second instalment of our analysis on the planned science park, to foster wider debate about the future of the University. In continuing our reflections on key fobs, we consider the idea of this technology and its effects on community. The topic of surveillance features in another two of our pieces, again linking to the conflict between university-as-profit and wider freedoms affecting those working and studying at the University. We are also pleased to have a contributed article on the recent controversy over the Travellers on campus, and reproduce an open letter to the Vice Chancellor on the topic. So here it is, subtext 24, for your reading and reaction. *************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF The result of the election for the Court representatives on the Court
Effectiveness Working Group (see subtext 17 and 18) is now known. Marion
McClintock, James Groves, Roger Bingham, Michael Howseman and Alan Whitaker
will be joining a group chaired by the Deputy Pro-Chancellor, Stanley
Henig, and which also includes the Vice-Chancellor, the University Secretary,
the University Librarian (Senate representative) and two student representatives.
Its first meeting is scheduled for 6th June. Whatever the outcome of its
deliberations, subtext hopes it will not sign off its report until after
it has been discussed elsewhere, unlike the Senate Effectiveness Working
Party (see below). In the latter case, Senate was asked to agree major
changes on the basis of papers circulated less than a week before the
meeting and in the absence of any interim report. It says much about the
approach of our most senior officers to such issues. Professorial pay The proposals for a new framework for professorial pay were noted by the Senate last week, although not without questions being raised. It is now expected to be trumpeted in the educational press as yet another example of Lancaster leading the way in such matters. Remember the Staff Charter, which received similar treatment? Whatever happened to it? On the ground, the Lancaster branch of the University and College Union continue to have reservations about the new framework, particularly how it will work in practice. It is intended to be implemented from the beginning of August, though this may not be possible given what is involved. subtext awaits with interest the reaction amongst professorial staff when those who will be accorded the title 'Distinguished Professor' (approximately 5% of the current total of professors) are known. It is understood these will not necessarily correspond with the current highest earners amongst the professoriate which, if the case, might raise interesting issues regarding equal pay and raised eyebrows amongst those professors who believe that they deserve to be on the new list. ****** College bars College Bars are likely to become the focus of attention and possible
argument once again with the delivery of the review group's report to
the Vice-Chancellor (see subtext 20). It is widely expected that the narrowly
focused, financial remit will produce predictable recommendations which
ignore the broader value of the bars as key social spaces for college
life and activities. One wonders if it will also ignore the recent College
Bars Strategy produced and agreed by the Principals (December 2006). The
work of this group has been shrouded in confidentiality and secrecy, but
information will out at Lancaster and copies of the report are said to
be circulating amongst the student body. The prediction is that Bar Wars
Five is likely but much will depend upon the Vice-Chancellor's approach
to the recommendations and his conciliatory skills. Council membership At the last meeting of University Council on 27th April, members witnessed
with incredulity the Pro-Chancellor, Bryan Gray, tabling a document for
an unscheduled item about co-options to Council. (This is the same individual
who is (quite properly) insistent that papers should be circulated in
good time and not tabled). On behalf of the Nominations Committee (also
chaired by the Pro-Chancellor) it proposed two white, male business people
for membership of Council. Apparently, it was remarked, somewhat airily,
that it had not been possible to find any suitable women or members of
ethnic minority groups for nomination. It would be interesting to know
how hard they have looked! To outside observers it would appear that the
Pro-Chancellor is doing what many previously feared would happen following
the recent reduction in the size of Council, namely cloning himself. Centros Miller Following on from last issue's editorial, readers might be interested to know that the developers Centros Miller have now started submitting their planning applications - 14 out of the 19 expected - in respect of the Canal Corridor site in Lancaster town centre. To view Centros Miller's planning applications and background planning documents - and also information on how to lodge an objection I you are so inclined - go to http://www.itsourcity.org.uk/ and click on 'Planning'. *************************************************** TRAVELLERS ON CAMPUS: A REFLECTION – CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE By Noel Cass, Department of Geography The details of the temporary Irish Traveller encampment and the responses - individual, collective and institutional – that it provoked were covered in the last edition of subtext. The following is my own reflection as a member of staff on the same themes. The responses to the Traveller encampment came from three broad sections of the University membership: the student body, its representatives and the SCAN newspaper; post-graduates and some members of staff; and finally the University administration itself. The SCAN newspaper had reports on the front and back pages, and a page 4 opinion piece with differing views from the LUSU Women's Officer and the Athletic Union President, in a show of journalistic balance (including the tabloid banner headline 'Pitch Invasion!'). The student reaction was mixed, as outlined in the last issue, and it was true that the initial framing of the main Facebook discussion group was one of incredulity as well as gratitude for a distraction from examination revision. The content of the worst threats posted was unbelievable, ranging from the genocidal to infanticidal, from theft and destruction of the Travellers' property to rape of their women, children, even their horses. Suggestions about the tactical details of a hypothetical massed student assault on the encampment can obviously be seen as humorous, with involvement from the Fencing Society, the Roleplayers with their medieval weapons, engineers manufacturing a trebuchet (siege catapult) and so on. Funny, if the reader accepts the background assumption that such an attack was thinkable or desirable. The worst threats were simple, bald, unadorned calls to kill all Travellers (called by a variety of racist epithets), by a variety of means, usually on the basis of them all being 'thieving scum'. As has been pointed out, the fact that the Race Relations Act 1976 names Travellers (Gypsy, Irish, or 'new') as distinct ethnic groups due to their having their own language, culture and nomadic lifestyle means that these threats are illegal incitement to racial violence. Postings from students vacillated between claiming that 'these comments aren't racist, they aren't a race' (the same was a response to headlines about Eastern European economic migrants in Part One seminars this year), and that 'OK, they went over the top, but it was a joke!'. Others became confused between the nature of the stereotyping and the content of the threats, and the use of specific terms, arguing that 'Gypsy can't be a racist name, it's what they call themselves'. The casual approach to stereotyping and to racist threats is disturbing, to say the least. The legalistic arguments presented in favour of 'speeding up the legal process' by playing football on the pitches, so that the encampment or any Traveller response would constitute 'aggravated trespass' were enlightening in revealing students' knowledge of the relevant legislation: the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1995 that simultaneously relieved local authorities of the obligation to provide Travellers with legal sites to stop in, and made stopping anywhere else a criminal offence. Apparently the introduction of tuition fees has been pivotal in establishing a sense of solidarity and identification with the University's Administration and its owners (a point made by a post-graduate on the Facebook site). Thus, the rugby pitches are now seen as 'our property that we pay for with our tuition fees'. As an anthropological case study, the incident is certainly enlightening in showing how a perceived threat from 'outside' can unite a group in identification with their institutional masters and their financial interests. Despite the fact that the rugby pitches and other facilities have existed for many years before this incident, tuition fees are now perceived to convey direct financial interest in the entire physical structure of the institution, for some students. It remains to be seen what action will be taken by the Administration, beyond the two 'emergency' e-mails that were sent out to University members, and which have received criticism from some quarters but also support from the LUSU President. The police were said to be involved in discussions, Facebook recorded rumours of disciplinary actions; perhaps 'diversity training' will be rolled out across campus? A post-graduate working on campus has expressed incredulity at the casually racist opinions coming from other University staff, and felt unable to speak out on the matter, whilst another has pointed out that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 placed positive obligations on public institutions to proactively promote peaceful and productive race relations. Another non-UK post-graduate expressed the hope that similar racism would not be accepted if directed at students of different ethnic groups. Beneath the University's apparently happily multi-cultural community lies some seriously worrying intolerance, revealed by a visit from the subjects of the last 'acceptable' racism, and it would be nice for a discussion to take place throughout the University membership on how to deal with it. ************************************************************** BAILRIGG SCIENCE PARK – TIME TO RETHINK? (PART 2) In the last issue we looked at the likely environmental impact of the science park that the University plans to develop with Lancaster City Council and the Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) on a greenfield site adjacent to campus (see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/archive/issue023.htm#bsp). In this issue, in the spirit of trying to provoke a more inclusive discussion about such strategic issues, we explore the question of the suitability of this planned development for Lancaster. Firstly, a crash course - Science Parks 101, let's call it. There are currently around 60 science parks in the UK, generally in the form of joint ventures with universities, and varying from single-building innovation centres to large mixed-use campuses covering more than 100 hectares. All are based on collaboration of some sort: some are more focused on the sharing of knowledge, others on sharing costly specialist technology; most are based on co-location, but others are highly dispersed, virtual parks; some are based on shared values, while some simply share the enhanced amenities that can be made viable through being located together. A science park is supposed to be more than a business park – a distinction that will be highly relevant for the effects of the planned park on the University and its reputation. A business park is at heart a property investment project; a science park, by contrast, seeks to extract value from the creativity it purports to make possible – to generate income from innovation. A number of further differences fall out from this. A business park typically has generic buildings, generally occupied only during business hours; a science park, by contrast, is likely to have specialised buildings, many highly secure, and often used 24/7. A business park is a more-or-less homogenous collection of individual enterprises; a science park brings together companies and research groupings with complementary skills and functions, in order to facilitate their collaborative and collegiate interaction. A business park is a low investment project, with an emphasis on speed of return; a science park is high investment, with a focus on the long term. How can you maximise the chances of success? Experience shows that the long-term success of co-located science parks depends on the sharing of facilities and amenities, the right mix of space, and a distinctive vision. Science parks need fixed space (for long-term, established residency and specialist activities), flexible space (generic, low-risk space that can be cheaply adapted for new spin-out companies and speculative projects) and shared and on-demand space (services, amenities, and specialist technology, that can be booked out as needed). Science parks need critical mass and space to expand if needed. They also need a carefully crafted vision that is sensitive to the character and strengths of the university, and to local economic conditions, and that situates the park in terms of regional, and national and international flows of knowledge and innovation. How does Bailrigg Science Park fit into this picture? The information that has been released so far suggests a rather generic plan, more or less identical to those being developed by many local authorities and their regional development agencies across the country – an approach which might be seen as reducing the risk to the University, but might also create its own dangers. It is also relatively small for a science park – built on 10 hectares of land, with an initial innovation centre of about 3,000 square metres, and a projected final floorspace of 30-40,000 square metres. In the north west, it is clearly going to be dwarfed in size and strategic significance by sites like the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, which the outgoing Minister for Science and Innovation Lord Sainsbury described at its opening last September as 'one of the UK's two strategic centres of science and innovation'. In contrast to such national innovation hubs, Bailrigg Science Park seems unlikely to achieve even regional significance. Such an impression tends to be confirmed if we turn attention to the kind of enterprises likely to be sited there. The expressed goal is to house a combination of 'spin-out' companies developed from university research, and 'knowledge-intensive' firms attracted from elsewhere. However, the Lancaster area has a lack of the high technology, knowledge-intensive businesses that one might want to attract, and the University's main activities do not involve the sort of expensive 'kit' that firms might want or need to rent out. Existing knowledge-transfer spaces on campus such as those in InfoLab, Lancaster Environment Centre's 'Knowledge Business Building' and the Management School's Lancaster Leadership Centre are mainly used by firms on a more temporary basis, to be close to relevant academics during a given project, and do not suggest a high demand for more long term premises. A team of consultants from SQW and Oxford Innovation were hired to carry out a 'demand assessment' for the park's consortium. Of the 40 companies they surveyed, less than half said they would consider relocating to the science park. Most were office-based IT companies such as website designers rather than those involved in 'first-generation', cutting edge technology. The survey suggested that, largely due to the 'weak' property market in Lancaster, rents would have to be kept low to attract existing businesses. But the consultants concluded that the viability of the project would be 'marginal' if rents was indeed at the local market rate. The demand assessment also made it clear that the science park would have to be prepared to open up to other businesses or general University activities. The initial letting policy is likely to be similar to that operating in InfoLab21's Knowledge Business Centre, which requires companies to be not only involved in relevant knowledge-intensive activities but also keen to engage in collaboration. 'However,' the consultants warned, 'if such occupiers have not been secured within a reasonable time period – say two years - then private developers and investors will wish to be able to let premises for alternative uses such as pure offices.' So there is a significant probability that BSP will quite quickly become a fairly conventional business park, however genuine the original intentions might be for it to be something more. Of course, if the science park idea were to bring businesses onto campus, the higher density of population might well bring real benefits to the University above and beyond any knowledge-transfer possibilities - making viable better public transport, catering and other amenities, combined heat and power, and other sustainable energy generation technologies. But in fact the plan is to build the park adjacent to campus, with at most a pedestrian path between the science park and the campus. In knowledge-transfer terms, the benefits of such a location are not clear, either for enterprises new to Bailrigg or ones that might have outgrown their existing premises on campus. Only 5 of the 40 companies surveyed by the consultants thought that proximity to the University would be an important factor in their locating there. Most interactions between companies and university staff would clearly be by phone and email, which could as easily be done from premises in the town. With the Reebok buildings on Moor Lane becoming vacant soon, commercial sites becoming available at Luneside West on the Quay, and under-occupancy at Lancaster Business Park near Junction 34 of the M6 and City-Lab in Dalton Square, there is a danger of BSP both falling foul of and further contributing to the current oversupply of employment land in the Lancaster area. The attraction of siting the development next to the university seems to be largely a 'badging' exercise, to mark it out as high-prestige and distinctive, to help talk up the local economy. As Andy Yuille of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said, 'This is an unsustainable land-use solution to what is effectively a marketing "problem".' Bailrigg Science Park seems like a high risk venture, and one which does not seem likely to produce globally significant innovations or increase the reputation of the University. Science park strategies require a long lead time. Should not the University management be moving more slowly, engaging in consultation with staff about the future direction of the University, working with them as well as regional businesses and public sector organisations to develop a vision that plays to Lancaster's strengths and potential? Perhaps then we could generate a more imaginative vision, and one which generated inclusive enthusiasm and goodwill across the University – a 'knowledge-commons', perhaps, or even an 'open-source campus', one which made possible a genuinely permeable culture of integration between academic, business and civic communities. Such a project might also fail, but that would surely be a risk worth taking. **************************************************** SENATE REPORT By Jo Grady, Assistant Dean, Furness College Filling in for a colleague I attended Senate on May 23, which lasted 3 hours and was packed with informed discussion and debate. I was led to believe that not much usually happens at Senate, so presumably I was witness to a rare treat. After the usual series of reports from the Vice-Chancellor, debate really began when the first discussion item was introduced, namely, the report and recommendations of the Senate Effectiveness Working Party. The item was introduced by the University Secretary, who explained that the working party had been convened as a result of Council's request that Senate undertake a review of its own effectiveness. It had decided that the size of Senate should not change dramatically, and that a smaller Senate had been rejected so as to ensure that the full range of academic constituencies was included in Senate membership. But it did make a number of recommendations to improve the actual operation of Senate meetings and the processes leading up to them in the interests of transparency and a better flow of communication. In addition, the report recommended that all the provisions relating to the operation of Senate should become Ordinances (rather than Statutes at present) so that any changes to them could be effected internally without the need to refer them to the Privy Council. It also recommended that the Ordinances be changed so as: a) to include a statement that 'All members should exercise their responsibilities in the interests of the institution as a whole rather than as a representative of a constituency' and b) to add Associate Deans, the Director of Regional Outreach and the Heads of Institutes and Centres recognised as the equivalent of academic departments. Gavin Hyman kicked off the debate by praising most of the document as sensible and welcomed. He did, however, raise concern over the proposal to turn Statutes into Ordinances. He noted that the procedure for amending statutes is lengthier and more considered, whereas ordinances can in practice be changed easily and with little discussion. He asked whether Senate really wanted the provisions relating to the powers of Senate to be downgraded, asking whether inconveniencing the Privy Council was sufficient enough reason to do away with Senate's constitutional safeguards. He also went on to comment on the proposed new ordinance relating to whether Senators should represent constituencies, suggesting that all Senators should and do act in the interests of the institution, but that in certain cases it may be necessary to represent a constituency interest, and that this should not be ruled out of order; which the proposed new ordinance might do. He finished by proposing that Senate should accept all the recommendations not requiring constitutional change and also the one relating to the proposed new members, but reject the changes to Statues and Ordinances and the proposed new Ordinance on representation. Linda Woodhead seconded Gavin Hyman's proposal and raised further concern over the proposed new Ordinance on representation. Reuben Edwards echoed this, raising concern over the restriction of sending substitutes for Senators unable to attend a particular meeting. The University Secretary said it was not the intention of the proposed new Ordinance to stifle debate or representing the view of a constituency. The Secretary also challenged the claim that changes to ordinances are easy, claiming that they do require approval by the Senate, with the Vice-Chancellor adding that the only step that would be removed was approval by the Privy Council. Gavin Hyman replied that referral to the Privy Council acts as a safeguard, adding that Senate can in practice approve changes to ordinances without a discussion. This view that safeguards should not be given away was supported by a fellow Senator. The debate continued for some time – with most of the same points being reinforced and/or elaborated by a number of Senators, with the new 'Representation Ordinance' provoking particular concern. After this discussion, another proposal was put forward that all recommendations be carried with the exception of this contentious new ordinance. In response to concerns, the V-C also put forward a proposal to add an additional clause, which would ensure that changes to ordinances relating to Senate would be discussion items, and therefore could not be changed easily. Senate was then asked to vote. Many Senators found the whole voting procedure very confusing. Senate did not vote on Gavin Hyman's proposal first even though it had been proposed first. Rather, Senate voted first on whether to reject the new 'Representation Ordinance' and this was indeed clearly rejected. Senate then voted to add the new clause proposed by the V-C, and this was carried. There was then a vote on part of Gavin Hyman's proposal to reject changing the Statutes into Ordinances (a rejection of the new 'Representation Ordinance' having already been carried. This was duly taken and the result appeared very close. A proper count, however, was not taken at this point, due to confusion over Senators' hands not being raised high enough. At this point, it was mentioned by somebody from the top table (perhaps the VC or the University Secretary – I did mention it was confusing!) that a vote against changing the Statutes into Ordinances would, in essence, also mean a vote against the provision adding the extra members to Senate. There was then another vote taken, and Senate voted - less narrowly this time - to approve changing the Statutes into Ordinances. It is hard to say whether this warning influenced voting, but some individuals did change their vote – including the Senator mentioned above who spoke in favour of keeping safeguards. Indeed, I became confused as to what I was actually voting for at this point. Next on the agenda was the proposal to inaugurate a new School of Health and Medicine outside the existing faculty structure. The first concern raised was over the status of the new school, particularly in relation to the faculties. The Deputy V-C attempted to allay these fears commenting that he hoped it would eventually become a faculty, and that it would not become an expensive monster as it would not be a traditional medical school. The potential dominance of the natural sciences, funding opportunities, and the effect this would have on students were also raised. When the discussion was closed and Senators called to vote on the item there were still hands in the air, suggesting that the debate was not yet finished. The item was passed with the proposal that a LUSU rep should be appointed to the group considering the possible governance and financial structure for the new school. Senate then considered a paper on the recent Student Experience Survey, it approved changes to the procedures for the Annual Teaching Reviews (ATRs) and Periodic Quality Reviews (PQRs and also approved changes to the course approvals process for the School of Lifelong Learning and Widening Participation. It also noted arrangements in preparation for the 2009 QAA Audit. It then considered a paper on Issues Relating to proposed new Personnel Policies which will include, among other things, re-writing statute 20 – covering redundancy and dismissal. This brought debate back into Senate with one Senator asking for reassurance that academic freedom would not be compromised by a new statute 20. Another Senator, in relation to redundancy policy, welcomed the Director of Personnel Services' recognition that any changes to Statute 20 would involve negotiation with the relevant trade unions, stating that it is necessary for the university to negotiate, not just consult with the trade unions. In response the VC stated that there could not be any changes to Statue 20 without consent of trade unions, as the Privy Council would not accept it. At this the discussion ended. Next on the agenda was a proposed new Professorial Pay and Review Framework. It was asked if the new titles and pay grades would involve new contracts. Senators were informed that they would not. The final issue involved the approval of Term Dates. The approved option means that in 2010/2011 and 2013/14, when Easter falls particularly late, week 1 of Summer Term will follow immediately on from week 10 of Lent Term. After the Easter vacation, Summer Term will recommence with week 2. [Editorial note: University members have been invited to participate in a consultation exercise on the report and recommendations of the Senate Effectiveness Working Party. It can be done online (https://domino.lancs.ac.uk/pub/SER.nsf/) where the working party's report and a summary of the Senate discussion is also to be found, or by submitting written comments to the Academic Registrar. In both cases it should be done no later than 18th June. The intention is to report the results of the exercise to Council when it meets towards the end of this month.] **************************************************** ONLINE POLICING In the 18 May 2007 issue, the Times Higher Education Supplement discussed the online policing of staff at British universities (see 'Staff see red over online policing', http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2036693). If any of the ideas raised in the articles apply to Lancaster, even indirectly, it is at least a cause for reflection. As reported in THES, staff who use blog pages or web postings to express concerns about their universities may face serious consequences, including loss of employment if they make statements deemed objectionable. For example, one web page features concerns about bullying at universities (http://www.bulliedacademics.blogspot.com), but universities may be monitoring this and other sites for libellous information. Even sending off an e-mail criticising your employer can potentially have serious consequences in some universities. From an article in the same THES issue ('When firing off can get you fired'), the following quotation from Amanda Gregory of the Higher Education Information Services Trust may have particular salience here. She said: 'I think academics are going to have to accept that institutions are becoming more commercial. They have to accept that the financial viability of an institution is paramount, and anything that could damage the brand of an institution will be taken seriously.' This concern about commerciality is familiar at Lancaster, where there has been tension between freedom of speech and the corporate image of the university. Efforts to suppress criticisms can also be indications of bullying, if people are not allowed to speak out about the way that they are treated. Yet these issues are far from clear-cut, particularly when individuals are named. Individual heads of department or other line managers may be more or less open than others to being criticised, especially in public forums. One small but positive indication for online freedom of speech is that LU Text has recently included some letters criticising the university's actions. The publication of subtext, since December 2005, also shows that people can use electronic media to criticise the university without backlash. Yet it would be misguided to be self-congratulatory and assume that all must be well. Could Lancaster staff or students ever be prosecuted or put under pressure for challenging their employers in online blogs or web postings? The experience of other universities at least shows that we need to keep a watchful eye on this topic. ************************************************************** RETURN OF THE FOBS In the previous issue, subtext raised concerns that, in some departments, students are expected to carry small mechanical devices as a means of registering attendance in classes. These devices, also known as fobs or dibbers, may seem benign, no more offensive than swiping a credit card when making a purchase. However, there remain serious questions about how the individually encoded devices could be used in the future, and whether concerns around privacy and surveillance are relevant. Moreover, there are questions about whether the use of fobs may conflict with pedagogical or ethical concerns around trust and attendance checking, and whether the technology is helping to shape the way that lecturers may be expected to approach teaching. At the same time, there are benefits to such devices, such as efficiency in record keeping, and the possibility of being able to identify students who are 'falling through the cracks' (by missing classes) before they encounter serious problems in their studies. So far, it may seem like these concerns are centred around students' fobs, but what if staff had to use similar devices to register their attendance in offices or buildings? This is already a reality. Just as hotel guests may have specially encoded access cards for their rooms, staff in some departments have individually encoded fobs for access to buildings or offices. Again, this may be harmless, no more than carrying an electronic key, and efficient because people have different access privileges. Moreover, when staff leave the university, access privileges can be revoked more easily than would be possible with metal keys. Issues of security and efficiency may override any concerns that ensue around staff fobs. Yet still, a number of concerns that we raised about student fobs can easily apply to staff fobs as well. For example, there are questions about how the information will be used, who will have access to it, and whether data from the fobs could ever be used for disciplinary or surveillance purposes. Even if the current purpose is simply as an electronic key, there are further questions about whether their use could be expanded in the future to contain sensitive information. Perhaps these concerns are unfounded. Nonetheless, as an institution we are going down the discredited route of more direct control. The fob technology fits well with the general thrust of University draft employment procedures and policies. It also appears that the management at Lancaster has not thought through the use of staff fobs. For example, in the new LEC complex, some research staff are required to use a fob to enter their offices, but in other offices a standard key is needed. The reasons for the differences can often seem elusive at best, resulting in more records kept on some individuals than on others. Also, since fobs are individually encrypted and distributed at a departmental level, there can be problems cross-departmentally in gaining access to meeting rooms, corridors, and lounge areas, even within the same LEC complex. This is hardly fitting with the university's drive for cooperation and collaboration across disciplines. While there may be sound security reasons for some of the divisions, it is also likely that managers did not think through the ways that mechanical systems would work, in practice. Perhaps, like many of our students, more and more staff will be expected to 'clock in' by using fobs, and this practice may simply become an accepted part of the landscape. Quite possibly, no one is looking at the data from staff fobs. Nonetheless, the spectre of the fobs at least raises questions about trust, and the inefficiency of a growing bureaucracy. ************************************************************** STAFF AND THE SUGARHOUSE Have you ever been to the Sugarhouse? It is uncommon to find any members of staff there. Perhaps there is a general impression among staff that they would not have a good time there, or that, since it is a student venue, staff would be out of place. These impressions are mistaken, although some staff (including some subtext editors) will find that it is not an inviting place for them. Some students say that they go to the Sugarhouse because there is nothing else to do, and have mixed opinions about the place. In describing the Sugarhouse, one student asked a subtext editor, 'Can you smell the sick?' Well, actually, no, but then maybe this smell gets linked to particular places and memories within the club. Or perhaps there was still residue from previous days or months of excessive drinking. The place packs in large crowds. Staff might find a number of familiar faces, not just undergraduates but postgraduates as well, and former students who are still affiliated with the university, among others. The Sugarhouse was renovated before the start of this academic year, making it a more attractive venue, and maybe this contributes to the popularity of the nightspot. The music varies by night and room (http://www.thesugarhouse.co.uk/nights/). Staff are likely to find that students have interests in older and contemporary music, so the music should not be a reason for staff to stay away. The music is played loud, and it can be a strain to have a conversation. Somehow, students have mastered this problem, developing uncanny hearing abilities, and being able to speak over the music without becoming hoarse. So, with excellent abilities in speaking and hearing, the Sugarhouse is arguably helping our students develop marketable skills. Also, amid the dancing and socialising, a number of students use mobile phones to snap pictures of one another at the Sugarhouse. This is hardly surprising, and all in good fun, but imagine: a Facebook page with a lecturer dancing out of sync. It is a venue where people relax and enjoy themselves, and subtext hopes that more staff will find a reason to go, if only as a personal experiment to see what it is like. Staff would learn a lot from the experience. On one level, visits to the Sugarhouse are a small part of placing student learning in context. Learning more about students, and how they interact outside of lectures, can help lecturers become better teachers. On another level, it could help in thinking further about the ways to foster a sense of community and enjoyment among staff. The enjoyment shown by students, relatively free of the friction that can stifle interactions among staff in individual departments, can be a lesson for us all. This is not to suggest that there is no friction among students, that all students now go to the Sugarhouse, or that all students have the same opinion of it. But if there is to be a greater sense of community at Lancaster, we need to start asking how this can be achieved. One way forward might be to look at what students are doing, and whether there are any lessons that staff might learn from them. And so we issue this small challenge to staff, and it is simply to go to the Sugarhouse, and see what it is like. Maybe we might see you there, or in the Facebook page created on your behalf. ************************************************************* LETTERS An Open Letter to the Vice Chancellor Dear Professor Wellings, A colleague at Lancaster University has forwarded to me a message sent out, apparently, to all your staff by University Secretary Fiona Aiken. The message informs staff of the arrival of caravans, and warns them 'not to approach' the Travellers. I find this message deeply shocking, and indeed reminiscent of anti-Gypsy hysteria and persecutions as far back as medieval times. Irrespective of any legitimate issues of exercising the university's ownership rights over its property, the idea that a university should officially point a finger at a group of people and suggest that they are too dangerous, or otherwise inappropriate for human contact, is no less disturbing than the idea that universities should be segregated according to race or colour. I believe that a great number of academic colleagues throughout the country would share my view that inciting remarks of this kind are entirely inappropriate and have no place in the daily culture of our academic institutions. Let me add that I have been personally acquainted with Roma & Gypsies for many years now, and that much of my research -- funded, among others, by ESRC and AHRC -- focuses on their language and culture. At the University of Manchester we are actively engaged in knowledge transfer activities involving the Traveller community, with support from the DfES, the Council of Europe, and other organisations. We have a number of postgraduate students of Romani background, and this year's Linguistics undergraduate module on 'Romani Linguistics' had a record enrollment of over 90 students. These students have had a chance, among other activities, to meet with members of the Traveller community. As our graduates, they will take with them a message of tolerance, curiosity and understanding toward others -- quite the opposite of the message which your university appears to be broadcasting with respect to Gypsies. As a 'neighbour', so to speak, who has visited Lancaster University on numerous occasions, I urge you to issue a personal statement apologising for the tone taken by your staff in the said message. I am sure that such an apology would reflect the true attitude of most of your academic staff, and would put right your university's reputation ahead of any public attention that it is very likely to receive over this issue. With kind regards, Yaron Matras, School of Languages, Linguistics & Cultures, University of Manchester ******* Power Draw Dear subtext, Just a quick note on computer power draw during sleep, as mentioned in subtext 23. A computer made in the last few years should not be drawing anything like 25 watts when on standby. If put into sleep mode (or set up to automatically go into this mode when unused for a certain amount of time) it should be drawing less than 10 watts, including both the CPU and the display. The iMacs seen all over the Psychology (my) department draw around 50 watts in normal use. When they switch into 'sleep' mode due to inactivity this drops to around 2 (sic.) watts. iMacs are specially designed to draw little power but I doubt any modern Windows computer and display would draw much more than 10 watts in 'sleep' or 'hibernate' mode. Laptop computers are usually even more efficient because they're designed to make their batteries last as long as possible. There are additional power costs associated with turning computers on and off. The whirring and delay time during startup is spent doing some very intensive and power-consuming stuff, and the amount of power used during startup can easily exceed that used just by leaving the computer in 'idle' mode for a few hours (e.g. over a lunch and a meeting) or even overnight. In addition startup and shutdown is when computer components are most likely to break (did you ever see a lightbulb burn out while it was on ?), and the environmental cost of manufacturing a replacement component or replacing the entire computer /will/ exceed that of generating the power used. So the lesson here appears to be for ISS to make sure that the Windows computer do automatically go into a low-power mode when not used rather than spend the time doing complicated maths or accessing the hard disk to run a pretty screensaver. The university might also look into power consumption when it draws up its list of recommendations for computer and printer models. Not only will the power saved help the environment but the money the university saves in paying for that power might help to fund our teaching or research. Always end on a joke. That's what I say. Simon Slavin, Psychology Department ***************************************************** In defence of the fobs Dear subtext, I just felt the need to stick up for fobs! I've used this system in FE and secondary in the past and it works extremely efficiently. Issues remain about the rights/wrongs of such a system but wherever I've seen them implemented (and I have co-ordinated implementation roll-outs in the past in FE) these concerns tend to die down after all parties see how effective they really are. Data capture is much more accurate and stats much more accessible and useful with fobs. On a very practical level the fob system can also provide a safety net in case of emergencies (inc fire/evacuation) and cuts down admin time massively. Despite many fears fobs do not have to contain lots of student (or staff) data. Indeed, their modifiable aspect is one of their greatest strengths, allowing them to easily adapt to the needs of different departments at different times. Moreover, I can honestly say the whole 'getting your mate to fob you into a lecture' is a bit of an urban myth in my experience. When I've used fobs, or introduced them to departments, attendance has improved dramatically, with students reporting an increased sense of accountability and motivation to attend in feedback reports. With an increasing number of students using this system at school and FE most wouldn't blink at having to employ it at a HE level too. Katie Shaw, English and Creative Writing ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |